Need Pro­tec­tion? Hire a Virus!

by Jamie Henzy

Is there any deny­ing that preg­nancy is a form of pa­ra­si­tism? The de­vel­op­ing or­gan­ism orig­i­nates at least in part from out­side the host (in sex­u­ally re­pro­duc­ing crea­tures, at least), and me­di­ates the rerout­ing of nu­tri­ent sup­plies at the host's ex­pense. In the case of mam­mals (and many other classes), where the par­a­site hatch­lings will ge­ne­ral­ly re­quire ma­ter­nal care, a gen­tle bal­ance has been struck that min­i­mizes dam­age to the mother-host. How­ev­er, crea­tures that do not re­quire this at­ten­tion have a broader range of op­tions. Some of the more cyn­i­cal of these have been taken by par­a­sitoid wasps. They have found a way to cheaply out­source the in­cu­ba­tion and feed­ing of their pre­na­tal prog­eny, by in­ject­ing their eggs into the lar­vae or eggs of other in­sects. Since the host is not re­quired for post-birth par­ent­ing, it is en­tirely ex­pend­able, from the wasps' point of view, and evo­lu­tion can skip the steps in which a del­i­cate truce is forged be­tween the two par­ties. In­stead, the newly hatched was­plings sim­ply eat the in­sides of their un­for­tu­nate host.

Fig­ure 1. Ven­turia canescens wasp de­posits eggs into an in­sect larva. Source

But there is a trick­ier as­pect to par­a­sitism than the feed­ing prob­lem. When a new crit­ter de­vel­ops in­side an­other crit­ter, even one of the same species, the prob­lem of self ver­sus non­self arises. Whether in­cu­ba­tion oc­curs in a mother-host or an alien-host, the de­vel­op­ing or­gan­ism, per­ceived as non­self, needs to be pro­tected from the host im­mune sys­tem. Now con­sider this: who in na­ture has tons of ex­pe­ri­ence at fight­ing im­mune sys­tems? Of course! Viruses! These are im­mune-fight­­ing ma­chines, with a wide range of skills gained from ex­pe­ri­ence on the bat­tle­field: break­ing and en­ter­ing host cells, de­liv­er­ing toxic pro­teins, shut­ting down host de­fense mech­a­nisms. In line with their pen­chant for out­sourc­ing, par­a­sitoid wasps have "hi­jacked" viruses ex­pressly for these skills, em­ploy­ing them in the pro­tec­tion of their eggs from the im­mune sys­tem of the lar­val host.

Fig­ure 2. Two virus genome in­tegration events have oc­curred dur­ing the evo­lution of cam­po­ple­gi­ne wasps: the first in­volved a genome, mak­ing it pos­si­ble to pro­duce ich­no­viruses (me­diating gene trans­fer), and the se­cond in­volved an al­phanudi­virus genome used for VLP pro­duc­tion (me­di­at­ing the de­liv­ery of vir­u­lence pro­teins), which has re­placed the ich­no­virus in V. canescens. A be­tanudi­virus was in­de­pendently ac­quired by a bra­conid wasp an­ces­tor and gave rise to bra­coviruses (DNA de­li­ve­ry). Adapted from source

First, how does a wasp hi­jack a virus? Well, rather than a hi­jack­ing, it's more like the virus crash-lands into the wasp genome by ac­ci­dent. This can hap­pen, for in­stance, if vi­ral mRNA hap­pens to be re­verse-tran­scribed and in­serted into the genome by a host retro­trans­po­son, or vi­ral DNA is snatched by the host as a tem­plate dur­ing dou­ble-strand break re­pair in a germ cell. If the in­ser­tion be­comes fixed in the pop­u­la­tion ("en­do­g­e­nized"), it is passed along ver­ti­cally just like any other al­lele. Ev­i­dently the wasp genome, like other eu­kary­ote genomes, has learned how to re­cy­cle good scrap metal from such crash­es. The proof? On at least three in­de­pen­dent oc­ca­sions, viruses that crash-landed into wasp genomes were sub­se­quently sal­vaged for pro­tec­tion of wasp eggs from the host im­mune sys­tem, though the dif­fer­ent scrap parts left over from these events re­sulted in slightly dif­fe­rent mech­a­nisms of pro­tec­tion.

Sal­vage events one and two in­volve two dif­fer­ent viruses in­fecting two dif­fer­ent wasp lin­eages some 100 mil­lion years ago. The two viruses are mem­bers of the Polyd­naviri­dae fam­ily, which in­fect in­sects. The virus that wound up in the genome of ich­neu­monid wasps is called an ich­novirus, and the one in bra­conid wasps, a bra­covirus. Vi­ral cap­sid genes from both of these en­do­ge­ni­za­tion events have re­mained in­tact in nu­mer­ous wasp species. Cap­sids are the pro­teins that form a struc­ture around the vi­ral genome, which, in the case of the polyd­naviruses, is cir­cu­lar dou­ble-stranded (ds) DNA. In both wasp lin­eages, the vi­ral cap­sid genes and genes for pack­ag­ing DNA pro­duce chimeric par­ti­cles that con­tain ds­DNA cir­cles car­ry­ing wasp vir­u­lence genes in­stead of virus genes. The process has been best char­ac­ter­ized in the bra­conid lin­eage (and blogged about by Merry a few years back), and goes like this: spe­cial­ized cells in the wasp ovaries pro­duce and re­lease the packed cap­sids, where they be­come as­so­ci­ated with the eggs and are in­jected along with them into the larva-host. In an un­likely col­lab­o­ra­tion be­tween for­mer ri­vals, the par­ti­cles then be­have like viruses, en­ter­ing the host cells and gain­ing en­try to the nu­cleus, where the wasp DNA is tran­scribed to pro­duce fac­tors that sup­press the host im­mune sys­tem.

Fig­ure 3. VLPs con­sist of vi­ru­len­ce pro­teins of wasp ori­gin wrapped in nu­di­vi­ral en­velopes. VLPs are re­leased into the ovi­duct lu­men, where they be­come at­tached to the wasp egg. Once in the par­a­sitized cater­pil­lar host, VLPs con­fer im­mune pro­tec­tion to the egg by im­pair­ing cap­sule for­ma­tion by the host im­mune cells. Adapted from source

Sal­vage story three car­ries a twist. As re­cently de­scribed by Pi­chon et al., the wasp species Ven­turia canescens (V. canescens) is an ich­neu­monid wasp and there­fore is ex­pected to car­ry ich­novirus genes in its genome. How­ever, in­stead of pro­duc­ing cap­sids, V. canescens pro­duces a dif­fer­ent type of par­ti­cle, known as a "virus-like par­ti­cle" (VLP). These are lipid vesi­cles car­ry­ing vi­ral en­ve­lope pro­teins, and orig­i­nate from the host cell when the virus buds out dur­ing in­fec­tion. VLPs are like vi­ral zom­bies, since they car­ry no vi­ral genome. In­stead, VLPs of V. ca­nes­cens are filled with wasp vir­u­lence pro­teins, not DNA, but oth­er­wise fol­low the same strat­egy as the cap­sids, be­ing in­jected along with the eggs into the larva-host. When he­mo­cytes of the host im­mune sys­tem at­tempt to en­cap­su­late the eggs, they are thwarted by the VLPs via a yet-to-be-elu­ci­dated mech­a­nism.

Why does V. canescens pro­duce VLPs in­stead of the cap­sids that its rel­a­tives pro­duce? Where do the VLPs come from? By ex­am­in­ing the tran­scrip­tome of the cells that pro­duce them, the re­searchers were able to de­ter­mine that the VLPs orig­i­nate not from an ich­novirus but from a nu­di­virus. Nu­di­viruses are dis­tant rel­a­tives of the main viruses of in­sects, bac­uloviruses. They form large, rod-shaped en­veloped par­ti­cles and car­ry ds­DNA genomes that ap­pear to en­code well over a hun­dred genes. And yes, "nudi" means nude, in this case be­cause, whereas bac­uloviruses car­ry a pro­tec­tive pro­tein ma­trix, nu­di­vi­rus­es just let it all hang out. Among the tran­scripts they found were nu­di­viral en­ve­lope genes, but no tran­scripts for cap­sid pro­teins – in other words, a sub­set con­sis­tent with pro­duc­tion of VLPs and not cap­sids. Analy­sis of pu­ri­fied VLPs by a type of mass spec­trom­e­try iden­ti­fied the toxic cargo de­liv­ered to the host-larva by the VLPs: an un­ap­pe­tiz­ing blend of wasp pro­teins con­sist­ing of a per­ox­i­dase, a Rho GT­Pase (guano­sine triphosphatase)-activating pro­tein, and a met­al­lo­pro­tease. These are wasp vir­u­lence fac­tors as­so­ci­ated with im­mune pro­tec­tion of the eggs.

Fig­ure 4. Mul­ti­ple syn­cytin gene cap­tures and di­ver­sity of pla­cen­tal struc­tures in eu­ther­ian mam­mals. (a) Phy­lo­ge­netic tree of mam­mals, with the four ma­jor clades of eu­the­ri­ans: (I) Afrothe­ria, (II) Xe­narthra, (III) Eu­archontoglires and (IV) Laurasiathe­ria (adapted from Mered­ith et al. [61]). The four ba­sic types of pla­cen­ta­tion are in­di­cated by coloured squa­res (the colour code cor­re­sponds to that of the boxes that frame the im­ages shown to the right). The time of in­ser­tion of the dif­fer­ent syn­cytin genes iden­ti­fied to date is in­di­cated. Branch length is pro­por­tional to time (in mil­lion years, Myr). (b) Schematic colour-coded re­pre­sen­ta­tion of the maternal–fetal in­ter­face in the four main types of pla­cen­tal struc­tures. Pla­cen­tal types are clas­si­fied from top to bot­tom in the or­der of de­creas­ing ex­tent of syn­cy­tia­li­za­tion and in­va­sive prop­er­ties. Source

In­ci­den­tally, the nudi­virus from which VLPs are pro­duced is of the genus al­phanudi­virus, whereas the bra­covirus that pro­duces cap­sids in the bra­conid wasps orig­i­nated from a be­tanudi­virus. The al­phanudi­virus has only been found in V. canescens so far, and is sim­i­lar in se­quence to path­o­genic nudi­viruses, sug­gest­ing that it was ac­quired much more re­cently than the 100 mil­lion-year-old ich­no­virus of the same wasp lin­eage. The im­pli­ca­tion? Two re­la­ted nudi­viruses be­came en­do­g­e­nized in two dif­fer­ent wasp lin­eages at dif­fer­ent times. Though closely re­lated, they left dif­fer­ent sal­vage­able parts – some en­ve­lope genes here, some cap­sid genes there. Yet even though this dif­fer­ence in avail­able parts ne­ces­si­tated dif­fer­ent mech­a­nisms (VLPs ver­sus cap­sids), each virus was co­opted by the host to per­form the same func­tion – to pro­tect its eggs! And what about that third virus – the cap­sid-pro­duc­ing ich­no­virus car­ried by other ich­neu­mo­nid wasps? In the V. canescens genome, the re­searchers found only rem­nants of ich­no­viral genes, sug­gest­ing that once the al­phanudi­virus ap­peared on the scene, it re­placed the func­tion of the cap­sid-pro­duc­ing ich­no­virus (now isn't that just like an al­pha?), il­lus­trat­ing two in­de­pen­dent coop­tion events that evolved for the same pur­pose in one wasp species.

As re­mark­able as this story is, it is mir­rored in a ver­te­brate lin­eage sep­a­rated by vast evo­lu­tio­na­ry dis­tances and likely closer to our read­ers' hearts – pla­cen­tal mam­mals. Mam­malian genomes car­ry a heavy load of en­doge­nous retro­viruses (ERVs), re­sult­ing in plenty of virus parts to sal­vage. In par­tic­u­lar, ERV en­ve­lope genes have been co­opted by nu­mer­ous lin­eages of mam­mals, on in­de­pen­dent oc­ca­sions, for their abil­ity to fuse cells to form pla­cen­tal tis­sue that pro­tects the fe­tus from the mother-host (note the com­mon theme). These ERV en­ve­lope genes are called "syn­cytins" and there is even ev­i­dence that they can sup­press the host im­mune sys­tem. Just as in wasps, dif­fe­rent co­opted viruses are as­so­ci­ated with dif­fer­ent strate­gies, in this case, sug­gested by the di­ver­si­ty of pla­cen­tal struc­tures. Par­al­lel­ing the wasp story even fur­ther is ev­i­dence of re­place­ment of one co­opted ERV by a more re­cently ac­quired ERV, specif­i­cally in the pri­mate and ro­dent lin­eages.

These par­al­lels lead nat­u­rally to spec­u­la­tion on the role of virus coop­tion in the evo­lu­tion of sex­u­al re­pro­duc­tion. How did the first sex­ual re­pro­duc­ers deal with the self ver­sus non­self prob­lem? The ab­solute de­pen­dence of viruses on a liv­ing host re­quires fa­cil­ity with en­ter­ing host cells and thwart­ing host im­mune fac­tors – skills needed in sex­ual re­pro­duc­tion. So, like com­pa­nies who hire erst­while hack­ers to build the fire­walls to pro­tect their data, per­haps early eu­kary­otes ex­ploited vi­ral se­quences for their skills in al­low­ing the pro­tec­tion of self from non­self re­quired in sex­ual re­pro­duction. And from there you have the birds and the bees, as well as the wasps and the pla­cen­tal mam­mals.

 

Ref­er­ences

Lavialle C, Cor­nelis G, Du­pres­soir A, Es­nault C, Hei­d­mann O, Ver­nochet C, Hei­d­mann T. 2013. Pa­le­ovi­rol­ogy of "syn­cytins", retro­vi­ral env genes exapted for a role in pla­cen­ta­tion. Phi­los Trans R Soc Lond, B, Biol Sci 368, 20120507. doi 10.1098/rstb.2012.0507

Pi­chon A, Bézier A, Ur­bach S, Aury J‑M, Jouan V, Raval­lec M, Guy J, Cousser­ans F, Thézé J, Gau­thier J, Demet­tre E, Schmieder S, Wurmser F, Sibut V, Poirié M, Co­l­inet D, da Silva C, Couloux A, Barbe V, Drezen J‑M, Volkoff A‑N. 2015. Re­cur­rent DNA virus do­mes­ti­ca­tion lead­ing to dif­fer­ent par­a­site vir­u­lence strate­gies. Sci Adv 1, e1501150. doi 10.1126/sciadv.1501150

 

Jamie Henzy

In ad­di­tion to be­ing an As­so­ciate Blog­ger for STC, Jamie is a post­doc­toral re­searcher and part-time teach­ing fac­ulty at Boston Col­lege.

 

Other Posts